Sprint 4G LTE launches… with 3G speeds

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Yesterday, Sprint formally switched on 4G LTE in 12 cities. With the launch of LTE in these 12 cities, Sprint LTE devices will finally be worth the money used to purchase them… Or will they?

Unlike a normal launch, Sprint chose to make a video to announce the launch of 4G LTE. In the video (embedded below), Sprint’s “Wireless Network News” announces that 4G LTE is available in five of the six original launch markets (with Baltimore, MD notably missing from the list) and quite a few cities in Texas. However, the fine print of the video states that Sprint is only promising 6-8Mbps on downlink and 2-3Mbps for uplink. This is equivalent to HSPA networks from almost three years ago.

So why is Sprint essentially offering 3G speeds on its 4G LTE network? Well, part of the problem is spectrum. Nationwide, Sprint is using 2x5MHz (5MHz on downlink and 5MHz on uplink, also noted as 10MHz total) for LTE. This does induce a throughput cap, as well as a capacity cap. However, it can be partially defeated by building a more dense infrastructure. Distributing the load of a market more evenly through a denser cell site layout would help a lot.

However, Sprint is also likely using relatively poor backhaul compared to AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. As we’ve discussed previously, deploying LTE without improving the backhaul will result in speeds that most people commonly associate with 3G. Indeed, it compares only slightly favorably to AT&T’s HSPA service. However, performance will get worse as more Sprint LTE users use the network if the backhaul situation doesn’t improve quickly.

Unless it does something soon to improve the quality of service of its LTE network, its path to domination will halt right here with Sprint’s failure to properly upgrade its network. The allure of unlimited data can only go so far with such a weak network.

they will, they are in the middle of network vision upgrade. come 2013 they will cover america! with unlimited 4g and plus they will raise their herts from 5mhz to 10mhz, doubling the bandwitdth. also when they switch on LTE-A (advanced) they will be reaching speeds of 90mbit/s LOLOL! and ONLY Sprint is poised to effortlessly transition from LTE to LTE-A! so yea, screw the haters!

look down and read what scott j has to say. its a software upgrade and a small hardware change. googe it up. how will sprint be lte-a

some_guy_said

“Regular” 4G? I think a better use of words may be “Wimax” or “Previous” 4G service.

LTE is basically the 4G standard.

Jonathan Phagan

Was just in Atl today with 22Mbps Down and 17Mbps Up.

duke63

Only reason you are seeing such speeds is because there are very few LTE devices on the network. As more and more LTE devices are sold. Speeds will decrease unless Sprint adds capacity. You are probably right next to a tower.

Maventwo

And LTE have support for MIMO so it will get much better downlink capability in some years.

irev210

Wow, this article was very poorly researched.

On most of Sprint’s current legacy CDMA sites, they are fed, on average, with 2-3 copper T-1 lines (which each have 1.5mbit of bandwidth).

On new network vision sites, they are all being converted to fiber or microwave (80% fiber, 20% microwave). Minimum backhaul speeds required by Sprint are 250mbit (with the ability to increase as demand increases).

As for speeds, 5×5 FD-LTE is more than adequate for Sprint. AT&T has multiple markets that they are only launching 5×5 FD-LTE (and have no future plans to add additional capacity). Verizon has 10x10Mhz FD-LTE.

Both Verizon and AT&T have more than double the postpaid subscribers, so average speeds that customers will experience are estimated to be roughly the same as Verizon/AT&T.

You know you are on an excellent tech site when the commenters have more knowledge than the author. Thanks for setting the record straight irev. It’s a shame that AT&T and Verizon can do whatever they want, but Sprint has a plan set forward to bring LTE to every single tower in their network and collect together enough spectrum to provide the building penetration of 800 SMR, the available nationwide coverage of 1900 G Block PCS and the utterly massive capacity of Clearwire’s 2500 and 2600 mhz spectrum for hot spots in dense population areas. As long as irresponsible journalism doesn’t cause everyone to mash the panic button, Sprint will soon have the best network of any American carrier. It won’t have the rural coverage that Verizon acquired, but once they clear Nextel off the SMR band, it will allow them to expand their footprint much more efficiently.

Celz

Yea it’s just click bait. Sprint was the 1st to 2G, 3G, and 4G. They would have never even went WiMax if the FCC didn’t force them to. The Nextel buyout paved the way for an awesome network so the FCC regulated it heavy. They had to launch 4G buy 08 before LTE and keep a 2G iDen network going until 2013. They are doing as good as could be expected, actually better because NV work has began from Coast to Coast already.

Yeah, 5×5 in LTE is a waste of time. HSPA+ 4G on T-Mobile is much faster any way you slice it. Fact is, Sprint has an old beat CDMA network. They tried to leap frog 4G with WiMax but just leaped into a brick wall. Now they are trying to put the pieces back together with a weak LTE offering. This is just another bump on the Sprint death spiral

WiWavelength

Thumbs down. Your post is as anti factual as is the article. HSPA+ 21 is empirically slower than 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE. And HSPA+ 42 is an irrelevant comparison, as it is a spectrum hog, requiring twice the bandwidth, 10 MHz x 10 MHz.

AJ

iansltx

…and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

True, 5×5 LTE has lower capacity than 10×10. However to say that Sprint’s LTE network will have less performance than T-Mobile HSPA+ is, in most cases, flat-out wrong.

Yes, in cases where T-Mobile has deployed two HSPA+ carriers side by side, maximum capacity is 42 Mbps down and maybe 10 Mbps up. This makes for some speedy downloads and uploads when conditions are right…I’ve seen 20 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up on T-Mobile’s network. But this was in ideal conditions (a cell tower a few blocks away, T-Mobile’s latest data stick). Many of T-Mo’s phones don’t support 42Mbps DC-HSPA+, and in some cases T-Mobile doesn’t have the spectrum to roll out the 20MHz of H+ required to get top speeds. Which means that you’re left with 5-10 Mbps down and 2-3 mbps up. Which, don’t get me wrong, is fine…

…but Sprint’s 5×5 LTE deployment has a downstream capacity of 37 Mbps or so, and well over 10 Mbps up. Peak speeds of 25+ Mbps down and 10+ Mbps up can happen anywhere on their LTE network, with any of their LTE-capable phones. Also, once Sprint finishes tuning their current LTE deployment cities (give them a week or three), average speeds will be on the order of 15 Mbps down, 5 Mbps up (or maybe a little more)…not quite Verizon LTE but faster than AT&T in some cases (when AT&T is forced to use 5×5 with larger, 700MHz cells) and definitely faster than what you get on T-Mobile these days. Oh, and Sprint doesn’t throttle or charge overages to its smartphone customers…try that with AT&T, Verizon or even T-Mobile!

As for backhaul, Sprint is only turning on LTE on sites that have fiber or high-speed microwave to each site (mostly fiber…some rural areas will use microwave more than urban ones…more on that in a minute). So bandwidth to the site won’t be an issue…just like it isn’t an issue on VZW and AT&T LTE sites, and on most T-Mobile HSPA+ sites…and some AT&T HSPA+ sites. Again, some LTE configuration may still need to be completed in the launch markets, but people are already seeing speeds that indicate that, as expected, backhaul isn’t an issue here.

Three more things:

1. Sprint can add another 5×5 LTE carrier (or even two) in their PCS band to augment capacity where needed. This won’t help peak speed until a year or two from now when LTE-A’s carrier aggregation comes out, but at two 5×5 carriers they have just as much capacity as AT&T and Verizon have with 10×10…but with significantly fewer customers per site. More on that in point #2. Sprint will also deploy LTE next year in SMR (old Nextel spectrum) when Nextel iDEN goes dark, adding more capacity and boosting coverage/in building service significantly.

2. Sprint’s network (cell site spacing etc.) is built for the PCS band (hence “Sprint PCS” pre-Nextel). Their LTE network is no exception. Higher frequencies don’t travel as far as lower ones, but Sprint has accounted for that since the beginning with their cell site spacing. The way they are rolling out Network Vision (RRUs, so no more coax cable to antennas), all-else-equal coverage will actually improve noticeably for both 3G and LTE but, that aside, the closer cell spacing means that less customers will be loaded on any given site than with Verizon’s huge 700MHz cells. The result: LTE will be running much closer to peak speed on Sprint’s network for longer than on Verizon’s, until Verizon starts using higher frequencies.This is exacerbated by the fact that Sprint has half the customer base that Verizon does, so there are less users fighting over an LTE signal to start with (though Sprint users will use more data, since they have unlimited access).

3. Sprint is deploying LTE to every single tower on which they have 3G now, and they are doing this as they launch large, area-wide markets, rather than setting up a few cell sites in and near a big city, then moving on to the next big city. This means that Sprint actually has LTE in some cities…already…where AT&T and Verizon don’t have LTE coverage yet.Since many of these areas are rural, Sprint’s network will be lightly loaded in those areas, allowing users to hit speeds comparable to big-city Verizon and AT&T LTE…and better than T-Mobile HSPPA+, which still isn’t in pretty much any rural area.

By the way, Verizon advertises their LTE as 5-12 Mbps down. Sprint’s 6-8 Mbps fits right in there. Both networks can, do and will deliver above advertised speeds until most of each carrier’s subscriber base moves to them. So comparing the advertised speeds of one carrier with real-world speeds of another is disingenuous.

Fiber is definitely good, but what is the aggregate amount of backhaul to a given base station? Because from what I’ve heard, Sprint’s not giving even half as much as what T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon are putting up.

At the very least, T-Mobile is beefing up to 10Gbps of aggregate backhaul with a combination of several types of backhaul links. And that’s per base station.

I’ve already heard rumblings of 100Gbps of aggregate backhaul being connected to base station equipment on AT&T and Verizon in areas where they plan to dual-band LTE really soon. So far, I’ve only seen 10Gbps on the stations now, though.

It’s great that Sprint is introducing 250Mbps of backhaul to its base stations, but that’s not enough. In the beginning, Sprint users will probably be very pleased, but as more LTE users come on board, it’ll get strained.

Network topological density will have to increase because Sprint will not be able to cannibalize the CDMA2000 network until after LTE is deployed nationwide and the entire stock of devices are LTE enabled. If Sprint gets a huge influx of users (which I bet it will), then Sprint will quickly have to ensure the network load is distributed out more in order to relieve network pressure and to maintain stability.

Sprint needs 91 Megabit/s to service 3 LTE Sectors with one upstream and downstream LTE carrier per sector. T-Mobile will probably be deploying on a 5Mhz carrier like Sprint in most places throughout the country because they don’t have much spectrum so they will have similar bandwidth requirements. Verizon, and AT&T will need 181 Megabit/s per tower for LTE on a 10Mhz carrier. Depending on available spectrum in the area 50Megabit/s is probably all that’s needed for 3G and voice services. You’re talking out of your ass. There’s no possible way that 10Gbit/s or even 100Gbit/s would be needed or feasibly worth the cost as it would provide no benefit 1Gbit/s is the most the big carriers will be able to even get close to using with all of their allotted spectrum.

If that were truly the case, then why would base stations supporting 10Gbps, 100Gbps, or even more throughput in backhaul be developed at all?

Besides, base stations support multiple network systems at once. It’s likely that the 10Gbps is being split up among the different network technologies that T-Mobile is running.

As for running 100Gbps through VZW and AT&T base stations, I doubt the usefulness of it until multi-carrier dual-banding with 3GPP Release 12 LTE.

NiteSnow

Even if they do dual banding they won’t require more than 2 gigabits and that’s with over 200Megahertz of spectrum. They could go up to 10gigabits if they where doing multiple 20Mhz channels and with 4×4 mimo but that won’t be happening any time soon.

WiWavelength

In 2012, arguing for 10 Gbps (let alone 100 Gbps) backhaul per base station is a ludicrous proposition. It is basically akin to claiming that the two lane street in front of my suburban house is inadequate; instead, a 10 lane road would be much better.

The massive backhaul premise is also a vestige of that dinosaur of a deployment model that VZW and especially AT&T want to sell the public and regulators, that macrocellular architecture with potentially hundreds of MHz per cell is the only way to meet growing capacity demands.

Nonsense. Small cells (within overall heterogeneous network architecture) are the future. Those small cells will be the equivalent of cell splitting to the nth degree and will significantly reduce the need for huge backhaul and spectrum outlays on macrocells.

Do you have any idea what that would cost monthly? 100Gbps? No carrier would need that much bandwidth at one site. You would be burning money at that point. If Sprint is contracting 250Mbps at every cell site, and what is in the ground is capable of more bandwidth, they are set indefinitely. No way they didn’t learn their lesson with the T1 lines they ran for backhaul for their 3G network.

As someone who has researched Sprint’s spectrum holdings for better than a decade and has access to current CDMA1X/EV-DO carrier channel deployment levels, I can assure you that Sprint has adequate spectrum in most/all of its PCS A-F block 30 MHz markets (e.g. NY, LA, BOS, PHI, DFW, SEA, etc.) to deploy a second 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE 1900 carrier with minimal, if any refarming.

Indeed, a second LTE 1900 carrier where additional capacity will be required is already on Sprint’s roadmap for the near future.

Bad show, Neal. You know that I generally respect you and your knowledge. But this article is irresponsibly speculative, not at all grounded in fact. If you want to know the real scoop, S4GRU has the info.

AJ

Jeff226

Verizon is advertising 5-12mb on its 4G network. How is 6-8 mb insufficient with UNLIMITED data available? What can’t the average mobile user do with 12mb that they couldn’t do with 6 or 8 on the Galaxy 3 or any other current smartphone? Nothing besides exceed that data cap even quicker. Articles like this are forcing a perception on end users that Sprint’s LTE is insufficient for their needs when that is anything but the case. Publicly flogging Sprint for a 6-8mb Unlimited LTE network is basically begging for people to avoid them, which raises your average industry prices no matter what , should they not make it.

6-8Mbps is great, if that’s what you get when the network is fully loaded. Sprint isn’t claiming that (from what I can tell).

DollarsnSense

They’re claiming that their LTE network will deliver an average of 6-8Mbps. That certainly sounds like their real world expectation once LTE devices and usage is commonplace. Not sure what you’re trying to read into the matter.

Yes, they are. Guaranteed speeds are what you will get with a loaded network. Maximum speeds are a whole different ball of wax.

Herb Torres

The fine print states “Sprint 4GLTE upload speeds are 2-3Mbps, download 6-8Mbps, peak 25Mbps. Expected speeds are based on testing of deployed sites prior to launch. Fastest compared to other prior Sprint networks.” Seems there is room for improvement after further tweaking.

JayQ330

Sprint is using 1900 mhz spectrum for there lte, Verizon & at&t use 700 mhz mid to high B & C blocks. Basically it has farther reach & needs less towers but it can’t carry more data than the higher 1.9 ghz frequency, sprint will need maybe 2 towers to equal the reach of 700 mhz but, sprints 1.9 ghz lte won’t show down like Verizon’s lte did due to overloading. Then you consider the fact that sprint will have 800 mhz & 2.5 ghz lte for a total of 3 lte spectrums each with there own advantages. 2.5 ghz will be 3Gpp or TDpp from the start at 20×20 & easily upgrade to advanced, 800 will penetrate walls & use lose power, 1900 will be best used when outside & 2.5 ghz, for hotspotting & where there’s extreme traffic. I’m just tired of waiting for lte to reach ny… They need to hurry.

sorry i apologize for being so rude. I just feel like there’s too many haters doubting Sprint.. Ive been getting 4G all over fort worth!!

ericdabbs

Thumbs down!!!! I am very disappointed at the author that they even let this article get posted with double checking the facts. This article is pitiful. In all honesty, you really need to re-evaluate your facts before generating another Sprint article again because this is unacceptable garbage you are spitting out.

Comparing HSPA+ to LTE is irrelevant. Tmobile is deploying dual carrier HSPA+ which means that they are using a 10×10 HSPA+ carrier which is double the amount of spectrum that Sprint is deploying it its 5×5 LTE carrier. This is comparing apples to oranges. Of course more bandwidth equates to more speed so it makes total sense to me that HSPA+ on tmobile is faster. However because Tmobile is dedicating so much bandwidth to HSPA+ and GSM, Tmobile is struggling to gather enough spectrum to deploy LTE. T-mobile may claim they will have LTE in 2013 but at this point, I strongly doubt that they have enough spectrum in many of the markets to run GSM, HSPA+ and LTE. Maybe a 5×5 LTE carrier at most since Tmobile has roughly the same amount of spectrum as Sprint.

However if you compare apples to apples 10×10 LTE carrier vs. 10×10 HSPA+ carrier, speeds will be faster on the LTE carrier. Also the point about backhaul is irrelevant since part of Sprint’s Network Vision project is to add enhanced backhaul (microwave/fiber) to each of the cell sites to replace the poor T1 backhaul which has plagued Sprint customers for fast LTE and 3G speeds.

With all due respect, Mr. Gompa, you truly should stick to your undergraduate studies. Your anti-Sprint, pro-T-Mobile stance shines through with your biased writing. To correct an error that you made in you T-Mobile shill piece from a couple of weeks ago, Sprint is deploying Release 9 LTE, NOT Release 8 like AT&T and VZW. What that means is that Sprint’s network will be upgradeable to LTE-Advanced with a software update. Sprint is on pace to have 123 million POPs covered with LTE by the end of the year. T-Mobile won’t even have LTE launched until a year from now (hopefully). Yet according to you, they’re better positioned for LTE. Yeah right…

Now onto this drivel-laden blog piece…I couldn’t help but chuckle at this: “Unless it does something soon to improve the
quality of service of its LTE network, its path to domination will halt
right here with Sprint’s failure to properly upgrade its network. The
allure of unlimited data can only go so far with such a weak network.” Let me get this straight, Sprint just launched their LTE network yesterday with speeds peaking in excess of 30Mbps in some areas, and yet you’re already hitting the panic switch? Based upon what empirical data exactly? Have you personally used their LTE network yet? Your ‘article’ leads me to believe that the answer to that question is NO. You intimate that Sprint is using poor backhaul. Since when did fiber and microwave become poor backhaul? Again, your bias shines through bright and clear and it’s sad.What’s worse is that you write this trash, then you get lambasted (and rightfully so), but then you don’t even have the stones to respond to your critics in the comment section. You unleashed this nonsense upon the world so man up and defend it or, even better, fix it!

I’m all for an open discussion forum, but let’s try to stay away from personal attacks. First/last warning.

Otherwise, thanks for taking the time to comment!

DollarsnSense

Fair enough. However, I must say one poster flat out calls the author “ignorant” another poster calls the author “a fucking idiot” and yet you choose to make this comment regarding MY post? Wow, Sebastian…just wow.

Well, I assumed the ‘undergraduate studies’ bit was designed to show that you know the guy, and that you wanted to cause as much offence as possible. If it was just a random insult, forget I ever said anything :)

willizen

I think this article from Neal is a bit of an aberration. If you read his other articles on sprint, they were very fair and full of solid info. This one is lacking for sure, but I don’t think he has an anti-sprint bias.

willizen

I have a feeling sprint is under promising and hoping to over deliver.

Herb Torres

I found this article trying to find out why Sprint can supposely profit from
continuing to offer unlimited data while the other 3 claim they can’t. I suspect
the main reason is because the infrastructure that Sprint invested into a long
time ago is still quite capable and even able to service other’s traffic
including their 3 main competitors. I heard a few years ago that Sprint
customers can roam free on Verizon because Sprint had a trade agreement with
Verizon to exchange roaming for using Sprint’s fiber nationally which I guess
Verizon is or was more than happy with the agreement except that Sprint may
have consistently gained more from as Sprint’s coverage was not bad to begin
with or got better as time went on.

Anyone care to comment?

Also I am wondering if Sprint maybe considering or able to offer unlimited
minutes on more of their plans like Verizon has just done with Share Everything.
I guess cellular voice is not efficient on their infrastructure and therefore
not as profitable whereas Verizon and the other remenants of ma bell
anti-trust created companies have under utilized older infrastructure.

I’ve been a long time Sprint customer going back to Nextel in 97. I heard
that Nextel is a Walkie Talkie network that was altered to work with cellular. I
guess Sprint had tried to give their customers the best of both worlds with
their hybrid phones such the Motorola ic502 but since they weren’t designed to
work on 3 frequencies at the time. Then Sprint released some QChat phones such
as Sanyo Pro-700, but didn’t work out for some reason. Now I hope things go
smoothly and Sprint shows that the merger with Nextel was a good idea in the
end to combine their 2.5GHz spectrum (even though not handled properly) and then
partner with Clearwire. I’m getting excited about Sprint as a long time customer
and also because of being leaders, green, and not the top lobbist in Washington
DC like Verizon and AT&T. I’ve posted my thoughts of how they should of
proceeded with the iphone recently as Erb69 here http://seekingalpha.com/article/703991-sprint-s-network-vision-reason-to-buy-now and
how they compare with Verizon’s Shar Everything as Herb Torres here http://phandroid.com/2012/07/14/did-you-switch-to-verizons-share-everything-family-data-plans-poll/ if
interested.

Right now its fast because nobody can use it. Look at the product forums. Its not accesable in any of the launch markets, just sporadic in a few burbs outside of those cities. Nothing in Atlanta at all despite being “live.”

This isn’t the best written article – the speeds being promised by Sprint are similar to what are promised by Verizon LTE – the actual performance on the street is 25/10 and above from what I have seen. As some other people have said, Sprint is also (unlike, for example, Verizon) poised for LTE-Advanced software only upgrades and has only just launched this network… this is kind of a demagogic article, not to mention the info about backhaul, etc, is incorrect.

Jason Walker

Let this be an example of how NOT to write a tech article!

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Email

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.